You can condemn this to death until you’re blue in the face, and you can release tons of press releases on how many laws have been violated … but in the quiet of your situation room (i hope you are already working in your situation room and I hope it is orderly) you’ll still need to draw up scenarios and how to resolve each of them.
Just some notes:
ISA LANG ANG MAGSASALITA! [rough translation: there should only be one pointman as far as releasing the public statements are concerned – the English translation is more modulated]. Here, you have a local AFP spokesperson releasing info on hostages, a national AFP spokesperson talking about the captors, a local mayor talking about the instructions given by the President, a local governor talking about the peace talks, a Palace spokesperson talking about lawlessness, etc. etc.
Since lives are at stake here, it might be a good idea to assign only one spokesperson, and this policy should bind all officials. Pagsabihan mo yung mga nagsasalita nang hindi authorized.
This one pointman should clear whatever he/she will say with the crisis committee. Please. Hwag kayo bara-bara at magulo.
Second, for the flow of information, this situation can be considered as — to use the words of the Supreme Court in a case on prior restraint– “tantamount to war” , such that you are authorized to establish a liaison with the news media to ensure that… lives are not put at greater risk (i can’t use certain words so i hope you’ve caught on… ok, i hope you got this.) You need to appoint a pointman (another pointman for liaison aside from the crisis spokesperson) who is not stupid and who is respected by the news media. Liaison ito. The release and flow of information on the following can be controlled in a situation “tantamount to war”: number and location of troops, troop movements, oplan, details of talks, etc. etc., this is a list, you can ask media law students, i don’t want to be too talkative where hostages are involved.
The rest are operational and I probably should not write about them (like… you should not assign grandstanding politicians as negotiators, etc. etc…).
More updates and stories in the 8am March 3, 2013 edition of my news site:
“Malaysian security forces had enforced a lockdown around Semporna town where the police and army have surrounded a water village .
“As of 3pm, villagers said a body was still lying on the sand and another on the wooden stilt walkway.
“No official confirmation was available of a hostage situation in the village. Some 1,000 families have fled the village in the aftermath of Saturday night’s gunfight with about 15 armed intruders.
“About 100kms from here in Kunak, the police and army were also on a manhunt for about 100 armed intruders who entered Kunak at about 10pm Saturday.
“In sahabat 17 about 300kms from here, the army was coordinating with police on the next course of action against the Sulu armed group cornered in Tanduo.” (thestar.com in Malaysia aggregated in my news site with more stories)
“Semporna villagers beat to death ex-Moro commander”
xxx
“Sabah police says situation in Lahad Datu, Semporna, Kunak under control. “Three armed intruders were nabbed by the security forces in Kampung Tanduo, Lahad Datu as they tried to leave the cordoned area; while five policemen were shot dead in Kampung Seri Jaya Simunul, Semporna, and 10 armed intruders sighted in Kampung Lumalong and Kampung Dasar Lama in Kunak.” (same)
xxx
“Semporna: Several villagers in Kg Senalang beat to death a 60-year-old former Moro National Liberation Front commander who was armed with a grenade launcher and had gathered several people at a mosque on Sunday.” (same)
xxx
“Sabah police chief Datuk Hamza Taib said the 20-odd youths, who were angry with the commander, had confronted him, took away his weapons and beat him up. The commander later died.
“Bernama reports that in the 7am incident, the big-sized man, dressed in black and armed with a M16 rifle, was coming down a hill when he let off a few shots at the direction of the village.
“Villager Abdul Hani Samaullah, 44, told Bernama that the man shouted: “I’m the one who shot the police last night.”
” “The man then kicked open the doors of the houses and ordered the villagers to gather at a vacant area,” said Abdul Hani.
“He said the villagers attacked the man when he squatted down to light a cigarette and put down his rifle.
“On the situaion in Kg Simunul, Hamza said police were still ascertaining the number of people killed and injured in the shootout after Saturday night’s clash with armed Sulu intruders.
“Hamza made no mention of a hostage situation or if there was a stand-off with the gumnen.
“The army has cordoned off the village and was co-ordinating with the police on the situation. At least six ambulances were seen at the scene..” (same)
xxx
Other stories: Masbate vice mayoralty killed (rappler) ; Pinoys in Sabah asked to be calm (abs-cbn)
World: Sri Lanka arrests 6 India fisherfolk amid tension in the region (ChNews Asia) ; Probing Hezbollah role in Syria (Al Jazeera); Doubt & clan politics in Russian cyberspace (Global Voices)
News peg: “Saying there was no turning back, Sultan Jamalul Kiram III has declared that his followers who crossed into the town of Lahad Datu xxx Sabah this month were staying put to reclaim their ancestral homeland.”
xxx
“The armed group styling itself as the “Royal Security Forces of the Sultanate of Sulu and North Borneo” is holed up in the seaside village of Tanduao in Lahad Datu town, where they landed in speedboats on Feb. 12 after crossing the sea from Simunul Island in the Philippine province of Tawi-Tawi.
xxx
“Lahad Datu, Malaysia – A peace deal between the Philippines and Moro rebels has alienated traditional rulers and their followers about 100 of whom have occupied a village in nearby Malaysia, a member of the old ruling family said on Monday. xxx
“Jamalul Kiram III, 74, a former sultan of Sulu in Mindanao and brother of the man Philippine provincial authorities regard as sultan, said the peace deal had handed control of much of Sulu to the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) rebels, ignoring the sultanate.
“He said the group of sultan loyalists had gone to Malaysia as a protest action in response to what they saw as the unfair peace deal, and they would not back down. xxx
“ ‘Those people are willing to die for our cause,’ Jamalul told Reuters in the Philippines.
“The group of 100 armed men has refused to move from the village they have occupied for nearly a week, despite pleas from both the Malaysian and Philippine governments to return to the Sulu archipelago on the Philippine side of the sea border.”
xxx
I hate to say this but: Whether you like it or not, in the more immediate, where lives are at stake, Malacaňang has to talk to the Sultanate of Sulu (and not just with Malaysia) albeit discreetly, maybe unofficially, maybe through the backdoor, maybe through emissaries; but talk you have to do. (Take the high road to defuse the situation: Hindi pwedeng “ah hinde… Hindi namin sila kakausapin”).
In the meantime, just for everybody’s information: The Philippines has never abandoned its territorial claim over Sabah as shown by the pronouncement of Malacaňang yesterday of a “dormant claim” , and as shown by pleadings filed by the Philippines in international courts, such as: The application to intervene filed by the Philippines in the International Court of Justice in the dispute between Indonesia and Malaysia over Ligitan and Sipadan islands – while that application was denied for lack of interest, it nevertheless documents the continuing territorial claim of the Philippines over Sabah. (Wikipedia, which apparently is being used by some broadcast reporters and news anchors judging from their unfounded generalizations over the Philippine Sabah claim, is not accurate when it says that the ICJ in 2003 ruled against our claim over Sabah in that dispute between Indonesia and Malaysia – stop relying on Wikipedia.)
The ICJ documented the Philippine claim over Sabah as follows (pages 1123-1130, International Court of Justice, Digest of Judgments and Advisory Opinions, Canon and Case Law, 1946-2012) :
“(38) In relation to the existence of an “interest of a legal nature” justifying the intervention, the Philippines contends that: “Under Article 2 of the Special Agreement between Indonesia and Malaysia, the Court has been requested to determine the issue of sovereignty over Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan ‘on the basis of treaties, agreements, and other evidence’ to be furnished by the Parties. The interest of the Philippines is solely and exclusively addressed to the treaties, agreements, and other evidence furnished by the Parties and appreciated by the Court which have a direct or indirect bearing on the matter of the legal status of North Borneo. The legal status of North Borneo is a matter that the Government of the Philippines considers as its legitimate concern.” The Philippines adds that: “(a) decision of the Court, or that incidental part of the decision of the Court, which lays down an appreciation of the treaties, agreements, and other evidence bearing on the legal status of North Borneo will inevitably and most assuredly affect the outstanding territorial claim of the Philippines over North Borneo, as well as the direct and legal right and interest of the Philippines to settle that claim by peaceful means. “ In outlining its claim, the Philippines has referred inter alia to Section 3 of Republic Act 5446 (which makes an implicit allusion to a claim to title to North Borneo) and to the Manila Accord of 31 July 1963, between Indonesia, Malaysia, and the Philippines, in which specific reference is made to the claim of the Philippines to North Borneo and “cognizance of the position regarding the Philippine claim to Sabah (North Borneo)” is taken by the Heads of government of these three States.
XXX
“ The Philippines has informed the Court that it has a claim of sovereignty in North Borneo.
“The Court recalls that on 5 April 2001, the Philippines sought, in a Diplomatic Note to Indonesia, “to reassure the Government of Indonesia that it does not have territorial interest in the Sipadan and Ligitan islands.” This position was confirmed by the Philippines before this Court. However, the Philippines has informed this Court that its claim of sovereignty in North Borneo might be affected by the reasoning of the Court.
XXX
“The Court finds that the Philippines has not discharged its obligation to convince the Court that that specified legal interests may be affected in the particular circumstances of this case.
“The Court finds that the application of the Philippines for permission to intervene under Article 62 of the Statute of the Court, cannot be granted. “
XXX
So i hope those “broadcast hosts” would not generalize that the ICJ ruled against the Philippine claim over Sabah in 2003 — that claim remains outstanding and unresolved.
Now however… someone’s mettle at negotiations would have to be tested with the need to de-escalate the situation in Lahad Datu, Sabah.
